nickerj1:NewportBarGuy: NickelP: That's a risk one takes. Maybe a good one, maybe a bad one, but its pretty much theirs to take.

I'd totally agree with that. I'm pro CCW and pro-gun, to the point of mandating all sales go through an FFL. Period. No exceptions. For a CCW you need to have a clean mental health record and clear NCIC.

Anyone who is legally allowed to own and carry should have that right. I'm fine with that.

But, we have a glitch in the Matrix and we have to fix it. Mental Health records specifically. We have got to figure out a way to flag those purchases and prevent the sale. Call it a 7-10 day hold. Don't disclose any information to the seller, just tell them that the sale is denied pending review.

We went to the f*cking moon. I think we can figure something out.

You would need to have a government appointed Mental Health Judge. Imagine the can of worms that opens.

You could have trained psychologists/psychiatrists do it, the application gets flagged, a mental health professional enrolled in the government program contacts the applicant and requests a meeting if they would like to continue their purchase, and they come in for a session (or more if the professional believes it's necessary) who then makes the ruling on if the sale goes through or not. The government could just contract the work out to local psychologists/psychiatrists in the area who go through a screening process to supply and work as independent contractors.

If the applicant is denied there could be an appeals process that brings the issue up before a judge.

Boo Radley:Ghastly: feckingmorons: Thousands of times each month lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

Wow.... when you put it like that it really makes you think. What a shiat hole of a country you live in.

Seriously, instead of giving every farking nutjob out there an AR-15 and as much ammo as he can carry why don't you as a nation start taking on the root causes that make your citizens want to do harm to one another.

US violent crime rates isn't particularly high compared with other countries. The homicide/suicide rate is, because guns are so lethal.

The suicide rate of the United States of America is not notably high as compared to other developed nations. Several other such nations -- including France, Belgium and Austria -- experience a higher suicide rate, while other nations -- including Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom -- have a suicide rate lower than that of the United States of America by less than 1 per 100,000 people.

The claim that increasing restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership (especially through bans on popular civilian sporting rifles) would substantially decrease the overall suicide rate is not supported by evidence.

TuteTibiImperes:You could have trained psychologists/psychiatrists do it, the application gets flagged, a mental health professional enrolled in the government program contacts the applicant and requests a meeting if they would like to continue their purchase, and they come in for a session (or more if the professional believes it's necessary) who then makes the ruling on if the sale goes through or not. The government could just contract the work out to local psychologists/psychiatrists in the area who go through a screening process to supply and work as independent contractors.

If the applicant is denied there could be an appeals process that brings the issue up before a judge

And there is the problem.

Don't get me wrong I am for universal background check, and there hsoudl be a mechanism to raise red flags for mental health, but if soem guy is going to make more money by saying a person is nuts, it won't work.

liam76:TuteTibiImperes: You could have trained psychologists/psychiatrists do it, the application gets flagged, a mental health professional enrolled in the government program contacts the applicant and requests a meeting if they would like to continue their purchase, and they come in for a session (or more if the professional believes it's necessary) who then makes the ruling on if the sale goes through or not. The government could just contract the work out to local psychologists/psychiatrists in the area who go through a screening process to supply and work as independent contractors.

If the applicant is denied there could be an appeals process that brings the issue up before a judge

And there is the problem.

Don't get me wrong I am for universal background check, and there hsoudl be a mechanism to raise red flags for mental health, but if soem guy is going to make more money by saying a person is nuts, it won't work.

Assuming they're paid the same amount for the exam regardless of the outcome, it shouldn't provide any incentive to deny people who aren't in a dangerous mental state.

Without Fail:Guns CAN be used to stop crime.Guns can also be used to commit them.

Its almost like they are a tool, which is neither good nor evil, but reflects only the intent of the user.

How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner had larger magazines?Larger than what? Factory standard?

How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner had an 'assault weapon'?First give me a definition for an 'assault weapon' so I can answer that.

How many crimes were prevented because the gun owner skipped a background check?I don't think you can even tie the two events together via causality, but whatever.

There is room for reasonable gun regulations and crime prevention as well.Oh, you just want to ban guns.

Thats cool - I mean me, personally, I'd rather attack the socioeconomic reasons for crime. Dealer Dan is going to kill Rival Randy for control of the crack corner, not because of the presence of a gun. We need to spend resources on ending the Drug War, reform our justice system to focus on rehabilitation, remove systemic racism (from everything), improve our education systems, make healthcare (mental and physical) free and available to everyone, undo the economic disparity, close the wealth/income gap, but oh shiat!Those would be hard and complicated and might actually work - better just pass some 'sensible and reasonable' gun control laws instead.

You run into a movie theater after hearing gunshots, and see a person with a gun, and shoot him/her, shooting the person who shot the shooterSomeone sees this, and shoots youand on and on, until the entire population of the US are heroes

kronicfeld:feckingmorons: He didn't shoot anyone. He was armed, when he wrestled with others for the weapon used to shoot everyone. You might want to read the headline.

Yes, you are literally correct, given the particular phrasing of the headline: he was an armed civilian who was partially involved in subduing the shooter. Of course, given that the gun in his pocket had no role whatsoever in what transpired, his being armed was utterly meaningless. His being armed had as much relevance as his gender, race, or sexual orientation: none.

Not true. His being armed may have given him the confidence necesary to engage the subject. Not that there were not people unarmed who didn't do the same, but I know that I would be much more willing to stand and engage rather than run if I were armed.

that said, the proponents of gun ownership aren't trying to say that if we are all armed mass shootings won't occur. gun ownership is meant to help protect the owner and perhaps his loved ones, not the world at large. while we may try to do so, and it's undeniable that having a gun gives you a chance that being unarmed does not, that protecting everyone isn't what we claim to be able to do - because it is an unreasonable expectation.

fredklein:Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links

Here's two:

Suspect killed after carjacking man at Red Box

Home intruder shot, dies

Upon previous investigation, I ascertained that neither vehicle theft nor home invasion were punishable by death. Clearly these were entirely unjustified extrajudicial killings, denying the deceased due process of law.

Phinn:Yet while simple life-saving measures are ignored, which could be easily and effectively enforced, and would quickly reduce the 35,000 or so annual road deaths, in a context where the State already has plenary authority, there is a huge political push, by the Left, to exercise control over a new facet of life, which is Constitutionally off-limits, virtually impossible to enforce, all to (supposedly) respond to dangers that pose a far smaller threat to innocent life, and which would also result in an increase in people's vulnerability to violent crime.

Really working hard to sell this idiotic false equivalency, huh?

Yet while simple life-saving measures are ignored, which could be easily and effectively enforced

To whatever extent that might be true, is the real culprit liberal hypocrisy or the fact that the multi-billion dollar corporations who own the government don't like it when the government tells them their products are killing to many people? See the common thread here?

DaStompa:You run into a movie theater after hearing gunshots, and see a person with a gun, and shoot him/her, shooting the person who shot the shooterSomeone sees this, and shoots youand on and on, until the entire population of the US are heroes

Strangely, despite frequent issuance of similar predictions by concealed weapons permit opponents, such an incident has never actually occurred in reality.

Dimensio:fredklein: Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links

Here's two:

Suspect killed after carjacking man at Red Box

Home intruder shot, dies

Upon previous investigation, I ascertained that neither vehicle theft nor home invasion were punishable by death. Clearly these were entirely unjustified extrajudicial killings, denying the deceased due process of law.

Quit being so reasonable.

There are people who apparently believe that a potentially-lethal attacker has the right not to experience lethal force used against him.

But if that were true, then it would mean that everyone is obligated to passively tolerate violent attacks, which is nonsense.

Phinn:Dimensio: fredklein: Brainsick: I_C_Weener: But nearly every week there is some story of a robbery or home invasion being stopped or partially stopped by defensive gun use.

Can you post one from say...this month? Difficulty: No NRA Links

Here's two:

Suspect killed after carjacking man at Red Box

Home intruder shot, dies

Upon previous investigation, I ascertained that neither vehicle theft nor home invasion were punishable by death. Clearly these were entirely unjustified extrajudicial killings, denying the deceased due process of law.

Quit being so reasonable.

There are people who apparently believe that a potentially-lethal attacker has the right not to experience lethal force used against him.

But if that were true, then it would mean that everyone is obligated to passively tolerate violent attacks, which is nonsense.

I have also been informed that anyone who is unable to defuse an aggressive situation with words is a coward and an intellectual inferior.

Dimensio:Upon previous investigation, I ascertained that neither vehicle theft nor home invasion were punishable by death

The victim (unlike you , evidently) cannot read minds, and does not know what the criminal is going to do. A home invader or carjacker may very well decide to kill the victim. Are you one of those people who thinks it's only appropriate to defend yourself AFTER you're dead? Or are you a person who believes that a person can defend themselves if they reasonably believe they are in danger?

snowshovel:Of course, the other side of this coin to this is that it REALLY debunks the theory that gun-toting civilians prevents crime, it simply rewards you with a greater sense of vengeance against the criminal.

if I see someone in my mirror flying up the expressway at 100 mph cutting people off left-and-right, can I "defensively drive" into his path cutting him off, with the hopes that he'll wipe out? That's sort of the vibe I'm getting here.

I don't know, I was responding to a challenge to find news articles in which an armed civilian interrupted or stopped the commission of a crime with the use of a gun. The person I was responding to seemed to think it was rare, but the ease with which I found recent news articles seems to suggest that it's more common than he believed.

BayouOtter:Its almost like they are a tool, which is neither good nor evil, but reflects only the intent of the user.

The ownership of the tool can affect the way the user thinks, and the tool can allow a crazy user to do a hell of a lot of harm.A nuclear bomb is also a tool but we don't generally think it's a great idea to allow private ownership of those.

dookdookdook:Big_Fat_Liar: The government telling tales they knew to be lies for days or weeks isn't a scandal? Pretty sure we've heard and read the evidence. CNN has a timeline if you need it. After everyone knew the youtube video claim was bogus, Hilbillary Clinton told a dead marine's father we would do everything in our power to get the mean old youtube video maker - and we did. Not scandalous at all? "Scandal" doesn't mean someone necessarily gets fired or goes to jail. They might just get a little red in the face - which is quite a reaction for someone with the conscience of an attorney.

Seriously? Is that really it? I mean, I know I don't pay much attention so I don't consider myself fully infromed on the matter, but is this really the totality of what the Fox/Rove crowd is red-faced in outrage over? Someone may or may not have went on a political talk show and said something not exactly true for some unknown political reason? Has there been a single day in the history of political talk shows when that didn't happen?

And Hillary tried to comfort a grieving father? OH THE OUTRAGE!

How many millions of taxpayer dollars has Darryl Issa wastedwisely spent unearthing these egregious acts of treason and terror?

So you do get it then. Politicians lied. If you don't want to call politicians being liars scandalous, I fully understand! At least we agree on the facts. I could not possibly care less if anyone is outraged or not over some aspect of this. I think this about sums up the scandal, aside from the classic government non-reaction to the security needs of its citizens. But that is understandable since for the past decade or more the government has had far more important things to do, like spying on Americans, militarizing local law enforcement, arming Mexican drug cartels then protecting the border followed by amnesty for those who made it over the border, closing abortion clinics, spending our money fighting gay marriage right up until it switched to spending our money supporting gay marriage, and of course the ever-important task of arresting marijuanna growers. They aren't just going to arrest themselves. Protecting an embassy is pretty far down on the priority list. But none of rant plays into the scandal really...

TuteTibiImperes:liam76: TuteTibiImperes: You could have trained psychologists/psychiatrists do it, the application gets flagged, a mental health professional enrolled in the government program contacts the applicant and requests a meeting if they would like to continue their purchase, and they come in for a session (or more if the professional believes it's necessary) who then makes the ruling on if the sale goes through or not. The government could just contract the work out to local psychologists/psychiatrists in the area who go through a screening process to supply and work as independent contractors.

If the applicant is denied there could be an appeals process that brings the issue up before a judge

And there is the problem.

Don't get me wrong I am for universal background check, and there should be a mechanism to raise red flags for mental health, but if soem guy is going to make more money by saying a person is nuts, it won't work.

Assuming they're paid the same amount for the exam regardless of the outcome, it shouldn't provide any incentive to deny people who aren't in a dangerous mental state.

Well if there are more sessions they would get paid more.

Even if there is no monetary incentive, there may still be an incentive.

Two off the top of my head.If you say he may be a risk and never does anything, so what. Little to no professional danger, you say they are "ok" and they do go batty, you may be farked.

Personal feelings on guns.

I am nto against sucha system, just saying it woudl need careful monitoring, and shoudl have a sunset provision inthe law to see if it is abused.

RatMaster999:OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256] Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms. It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...

Sigh...

200 people per year are justifiably killed by lawful firearm owners. These are your Zimmermans, your heroes, those you want to emulate. These are the stories that the gun industry repeats over and over to sell their products. It is a powerful fantasy. These are the instances of vigilante justice we are all supposed to be ready to sacrifice for....

Here is the sacrifice: 11,000 people unjustifiably killed by firearm owners (and that's not including suicides). Their stories are not told. They are just statistics. They are 11,000 families burying a loved one who went before his or her time, thanks to the lawful gun owners who just happened to have an unlawful day, the lawful gun purchasers who lawfully sold their guns to unlawful people, the lawful gun owners who lawfully left their guns unattended, et cetera.

The point is how does the 200 hero stories published in Guns And Ammo justify the 11,000 instances of collateral death? Because that is what you get when you put firearms into the hands of every unqualified amateur that wants one. Tell me again how guns save lives.

OrangeSnapper:RatMaster999: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256] Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms. It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...

Sigh...

200 people per year are justifiably killed by lawful firearm owners. These are your Zimmermans, your heroes, those you want to emulate. These are the stories that the gun industry repeats over and over to sell their products. It is a powerful fantasy. These are the instances of vigilante justice we are all supposed to be ready to sacrifice for....

Here is the sacrifice: 11,000 people unjustifiably killed by firearm owners (and that's not including suicides). Their stories are not told. They are just statistics. They are 11,000 families burying a loved one who went before his or her time, thanks to the lawful gun owners who just happened to have an unlawful day, the lawful gun purchasers who lawfully sold their guns to unlawful people, the lawful gun owners who lawfully left their guns unattended, et cetera.

The point is how does the 200 hero stories published in Guns And Ammo justify the 11,000 instances of collateral death? Because that is what you get when you put firearms into the hands of every unqualified amateur that wants one. Tell me again how guns save lives.

If all justified defensive firearm uses resulted in death, your argument would not be intellectually dishonest.

Dimensio:OrangeSnapper: RatMaster999: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256] Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms. It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...

Sigh...

200 people per year are justifiably killed by lawful firearm owners. These are your Zimmermans, your heroes, those you want to emulate. These are the stories that the gun industry repeats over and over to sell their products. It is a powerful fantasy. These are the instances of vigilante justice we are all supposed to be ready to sacrifice for....

Here is the sacrifice: 11,000 people unjustifiably killed by firearm owners (and that's not including suicides). Their stories are not told. They are just statistics. They are 11,000 families burying a loved one who went before his or her time, thanks to the lawful gun owners who just happened to have an unlawful day, the lawful gun purchasers who lawfully sold their guns to unlawful people, the lawful gun owners who lawfully left their guns unattended, et cetera.

The point is how does the 200 hero stories published in Guns And Ammo justify the 11,000 instances of collateral death? Because that is what you get when you put firearms into the hands of every unqualified amateur that wants one. Tell me again how guns save lives.

If all justified defensive firearm uses resulted in death, your argument would not be intellectually dishonest.

No, it would still be dishonest.

Universal background check would only make a dent int hat 11,000 number. Most murderes are committed by people who currently shouldn't have guns.

OrangeSnapper:feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256] Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.[api.ning.com image 850x689]

So the definition of protecting someone or yourself has to include the death of a perpetrator?

That means police protected only 200 people more than non police did last year.

You sure you want to go with that?

Where does Laughner and Tsarnaev and sideshow bob fit into your statistics since all of them were taken alive by police?

Well apparently the idea that the armed citizenry is a deterrent to an oppressive government bent on usurping the rights of the citizens isn't working out anyway, so why don't we just give all our guns up and bend over for the courts, congress and corporations that control us.

Was Floyd Corkins stopped by armed civilians? I can't remember. Corkins was the only politically-motivated mass murder (albeit prevented) in more than 10 years -- he was a gay marriage advocate. He had something like 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches with him, which he planned to smear in his victims' faces.

liam76:TuteTibiImperes: liam76: TuteTibiImperes: You could have trained psychologists/psychiatrists do it, the application gets flagged, a mental health professional enrolled in the government program contacts the applicant and requests a meeting if they would like to continue their purchase, and they come in for a session (or more if the professional believes it's necessary) who then makes the ruling on if the sale goes through or not. The government could just contract the work out to local psychologists/psychiatrists in the area who go through a screening process to supply and work as independent contractors.

If the applicant is denied there could be an appeals process that brings the issue up before a judge

And there is the problem.

Don't get me wrong I am for universal background check, and there should be a mechanism to raise red flags for mental health, but if soem guy is going to make more money by saying a person is nuts, it won't work.

Assuming they're paid the same amount for the exam regardless of the outcome, it shouldn't provide any incentive to deny people who aren't in a dangerous mental state.

Well if there are more sessions they would get paid more.

Even if there is no monetary incentive, there may still be an incentive.

Two off the top of my head.If you say he may be a risk and never does anything, so what. Little to no professional danger, you say they are "ok" and they do go batty, you may be farked.

Personal feelings on guns.

I am nto against sucha system, just saying it woudl need careful monitoring, and shoudl have a sunset provision inthe law to see if it is abused.

That's not unreasonable. I'm sure there could be ways to balance the liability and provide oversight to make such a system effective.

OrangeSnapper:RatMaster999: OrangeSnapper: feckingmorons:Thousands Hundreds of times each month year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families with firearms.

[www.renegadepopo.com image 306x256] Thousands Tens of thousands of times each year lawfully armed citizens protect themselves and their families kill themselves and each other with firearms.[api.ning.com image 850x689]

Judging from your numbers, we should be outlawing motor vehicles and ladders before we get to firearms. It's about saving lives, isn't it?

And don't get me started on cigarettes...

Sigh...

200 people per year are justifiably killed by lawful firearm owners. These are your Zimmermans, your heroes, those you want to emulate. These are the stories that the gun industry repeats over and over to sell their products. It is a powerful fantasy. These are the instances of vigilante justice we are all supposed to be ready to sacrifice for....

Here is the sacrifice: 11,000 people unjustifiably killed by firearm owners (and that's not including suicides). Their stories are not told. They are just statistics. They are 11,000 families burying a loved one who went before his or her time, thanks to the lawful gun owners who just happened to have an unlawful day, the lawful gun purchasers who lawfully sold their guns to unlawful people, the lawful gun owners who lawfully left their guns unattended, et cetera.

The point is how does the 200 hero stories published in Guns And Ammo justify the 11,000 instances of collateral death? Because that is what you get when you put firearms into the hands of every unqualified amateur that wants one. Tell me again how guns save lives.

85% of all gun related homicide are perpetrated by people with previous felony convictions that preclude them from owning a firearm.

85% of all victims of firearm related homicide are also people with prior felony convictions.

85% of all victims and perpetrators of firearm homicide are involved in gangs or the drug trade.

And firearm related homicide statistics have been trending down for the past 30 years.

The world is actually a safer place but you wouldn't know that from the sensationalism that it seems even Fark has become a part of.

Look, because I don't REALLY DESPERATELY WANT TO HAVE A GUN, I can look at the numbers and say, yeah, no thanks, I'm sure as hell better off without one, and in most cases I'm better off without you having one, too.

So I'm not going to be comment #400 in gun thread #80,000 trying to convince all the people who really desperately want their guns that they don't actually want them.

Instead, I'll just point out that I'm 37 years old, and (unless I get shot!) I'm reasonably likely to live to see a day when three things are true:

1. We (society) really did "come for your guns." Handguns and civilian gonna-kill-some-dudes guns, at least.2. You gave them up without a fight, in spite of every "cold dead hands" post you've ever made.3. Your grandchildren give you shiat about ever having owned one, assuming you don't just lie about ever having been a gun owner.

I mean, yeah, a lot of really horrible shiat is going to happen in the meantime, for that to happen. So I won't exactly be smiling when you dutifully drop your collapsible-stock quick-reload semi-automatic "hunting rifles" off at the local PD, to say nothing of all the cheapass handguns you put loaded in your bedside drawers and then didn't touch or clean for twenty years. But hopefully I won't be so old that I won't have the presence of mind to ask what your Fark handle was back in the day.

I'm reasonably likely to live to see a day when three things are true:1. We (society) really did "come for your guns." Handguns and civilian gonna-kill-some-dudes guns, at least.2. You gave them up without a fight, in spite of every "cold dead hands" post you've ever made.3. Your grandchildren give you shiat about ever having owned one, assuming you don't just lie about ever having been a gun owner.

I'm not a gun owner, but you are out of your mind if you actually believe this. Nothing could be further from the truth.

El_Perro:NickelP: Damn near every shooting in recent memory has been stopped by someone armed. Can you make us a case that any mass shooting was made worse by an armed civilian? And don't say the shooter dumbass

Don't know about a civilian, but it looks like the Navy Yard shooter used at least one (and maybe two) guns that he took after shooting armed guards at the start of his rampage.

And he also couldn't be stopped by the rest of the military personnel who weren't allowed to carry guns. And neither could pretty much any other mass shooter because he was in some other gun free zone such as a school, a mall or a movie theater. I would love to see someone try and start a mass shooting at a gun show or a bar with open carry.

Someone already made a point that we can't find examples of armed citizens stopping mass shootings, because when they do then a mass shooting didn't happen. And people who want to start a mass murder always go where the guns aren't.

If anyone has the fantasy it's the deluded liberals who think outlawing guns in this country would create a non-violent utopia.

flondrix:The caveat I read somewhere was each time an armed "civilian" has helped stop a mass shooting, the "civilian" was in fact an off-duty law enforcement officer.

This is true of the ones that have stopped a shooting that started. Who knows how many have been stopped before the shooter got going? Those instances above...who knows if the home invader, or carjacker, or robber was going to stop with just one? Maybe these defensive gun uses have stopped thousands of spree killers? We just don't know, do we...since they stopped the person before they killed one person.

Or in other words, "In the past 30 years, police officers have failed to stop mass shootings before they became mass shootings 100% of the time."

dehehn:And he also couldn't be stopped by the rest of the military personnel who weren't allowed to carry guns. And neither could pretty much any other mass shooter because he was in some other gun free zone such as a school, a mall or a movie theater. I would love to see someone try and start a mass shooting at a gun show or a bar with open carry.

A few years back I submitted a headline about an incident in Texas. It was something like, "Gunshot fired at Texas gun show. One? That doesn't sound like Texas. 'Over 40 shots fired back'. Okay, that sounds like Texas."